User talk:Rickm7x

September 2008[edit]

Welcome. I'm sorry if you felt my edits did violence to your work. The way the references are set up now isn't entirely in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. WP:FOOT might help with further information. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into those suggestions. I do want to follow protocol, but the references are different from the sources (although they may overlap) and I believe they are necessary for the article. If you can specify (to save time) what it is about the refs that make them not in line with Wikipedia, please let me know. Thank you. Rickm7x (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Footnotes should be reciprocal links.^[1] David in DC (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Is there an easy to understand page to create the reciprocal links when the numbers are different (for different footnotes)? Thanks. Rickm7x (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ like this. The superscript up there takes you down here. Clicking on the carat takes you back to your place in the text. You can't see the effect on this short page, but on the articles page you would jump up and down.

{{helpme}} I wrote an article within my page then moved the article to a Wikipedia public page. It did more than I planned. Now my "my talk" page has the title of the article I wrote. How do I correct this so my "my talk" page is back under Rickm7x and my article on Betty Hill stays public with her own discussion page? Thanks. Rickm7x (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you move a page, the old page gets redirected to the new page. I've fixed it for you. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 21:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rickm7x (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} Follow up question, there is still material listing other contributions listed under Betty Hill (civil rights leader) that belong here. I notice in the history tab under Betty Hill (civil rights leader) there is material that should be under my user history here. How do I correct this? Rickm7x (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC) It is material listed here: Revision history of Talk:Betty Hill (civil rights leader) Rickm7x (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't think you can change that. And as usual, I'm the only person who can be bothered to answer a helpme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histories can't be merged once a page is moved. [ roux ] [x] 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways. Rickm7x (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about living people[edit]

Articles about living people are governed by the WP:BLP policy. Please familiarise yourself with this policy and abide by it. Note that it doesn't just apply to biographical articles, it also applies to all comments about living people anywhere in Wikipedia. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with articles about living people. You made an error in attributing a cite from a FrontPage Mag article to me, so you need to check your facts before making accusations. Who are you?Rickm7x (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attribute the cite to you. But you did source material to an SPS. Please address the issues on the article's talk page instead of blindly reverting. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't claim you're removing SPSs when you're inserting them. Making false claims like that is unacceptable. Especially in a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert a SPS. As stated, the blog contained the actual document and I added that information in the cite. Therefore I did not make a false claim. So A. I did not insert the David Horowitz cite from FrontPage Mag and B. I clarified that the document is clearly visible on the blog and therefore NOT a SPS. So please stop trying to start an edit war.Rickm7x (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

That kind of thing has been argued before. Take a look at the talk page. That isn't NPOV. Plus, it's not a think-tank or anything along those lines, so adding "political affiliation" is neither necessary nor helpful. Dustin (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit-war, please discuss your proposed addition on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center; it is Wikipedia best practice not to load down the lede section of an article with he-said, she-said quotes from opponents or supporters of an organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Albano[edit]

I can definitely send you the relevant information. On my user page, there's a link at the bottom to my personal website; there, my CV has my email address at the top. Send me an email and I'll send you whatever you need. Korossyl (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Korossyl (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

Hello. A couple of things:

There is no purpose in adding tildes (~~~~) to an edit summary. This is only for adding a signature to the end of a comment on a talk page. See Help:Signatures for more.

As for BuzzFeed News, please discuss adding the political ideology on the article's the talk page (Talk:BuzzFeed News). Some articles on news sources have this, and many do not. This is judged on a case-by-case basis. The source you cited is about the site's audience, but is it not a substantial one, nor is it clear how this reflects on the site's content. This was a column based on a single poll from a single point in time, and if this is a defining trait, it should be possible to find other neutral sources which describe it this was. Again, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page, so that other editors can participate. Edit summaries are not good for this kind of discussion, and this talk page is not good for building consensus.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add the four tildes because it says to sign posts "by typing four tildes." If it's not necessary for articles, then I will take your advice under consideration.

As for political ideology, there are numerous examples where it is given in the introduction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Events, where the ideology is given in the introductions, yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_(website), like BuzzFeed News, has no such mention of ideology in the introduction despite it being mentioned (with sources) in the Editorial Stance section. This smacks of bias and gives the false impression that these publications are ideologically neutral. It is clearly biased to put ideology in the introductory sections in conservative/right-wing publications but to omit it for liberal/left-wing ones. Applying the same standard promotes a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickm7x (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posts to talk pages, like this page, should be signed by adding tildes to the end of the comment itself, not the edit summary. As Help:Signatures explains, this is specifically for talk pages, not for all pages. Edit summaries are not the same as talk pages, and should not be signed. Adding tildes to an edit summary does not add a signature to your talk page comments, and it makes it much harder for other editors follow a discussion.

As I said, your proposed content changes should be discussed on the articles' talk pages. Be aware that this issue has been discussed many times already in various places. To briefly explain past consensus, we do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that each side is equally valid. We judge each article on its own merits, and we do this by evaluating how reliable sources define a topic. If sources say something about Human Events, we will reflect those sources in that article. If they say something about BuzzFeed News, we will reflect those sources in that article. They are separate topics with separate sources. Treating them as similar because they are ideologically different is a subtle form of editorializing. The burden is on you to gain consensus on the articles' talk pages.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like excuse-making for having a double-standard. Editorial comments are okay for right-wing publications but not for left-wing ones. The burden is on editors to not be biased but to show a neutral point of view and not take sides.

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this. The superscript up there takes you down here. Clicking on the carat takes you back to your place in the text. You can't see the effect on this short page, but on the articles page you would jump up and down.

[1]